Constitutional Amendments : Current or Retroactive? (Player's Vote)

Sorry for the above formatting. That was weird.

 

Why did you quot me Skidmark? lol

 

If it was any other team going through this issue in the AHL nobody would be voting retroactive, but since it is Crass who is going to be getting eliminated all of the AHL teams are going to be voting retroactive. In the best interest of the league, if there is a new rule that is added/amended it shouldn't affect stuff that has already happened in the past.

 

Oh, so its a date process not a round process?

Now you run into the issue of all the other teams who abide by the original rules being neglected the opportunity Stockton is being granted, to include but not limited to the admirals, who are now being held to a different standard than their opponents were in the very same round of the tournament.

If retroactive, the FF stands
If not, either team will be eligible for a subsequent FF, but the original FF will remained overturned.

If it's not going to be retroactive, then it has to be processed by rounds of playoffs, not date.

 

You can have both.

Retroactivity from the date it is adopted and beyond.

No court would ever say oh since this rule got adopted and says you can go back and change something within two weeks and then something that happened while this rule was NOT in place can now be affected by the new rule.

 

Jesus my head is spinning

 

My exact sentiments.

 

Yeah; but, there are courts with similar situations in their law books.
Legally you're allowed to beat your wife on Sundays on the magistrates steps in West Virginia with a stick no wider than your thumb; but, there is also a spousal abuse law that says you can't beat your wife. This spousal abuse law was an amendment to the first. If you beat your wife on Sunday with a stick thinner than your thumb in public on the steps of the magistrate, what do you think is going to happen?

So if they follow the more recent add on to their law; even though it contradicts the original, why are we different?

 

Apparently this isn't a court so we need to verbally joust with another analogy. I'll let you start.

 

Playing Games is what matters most.

 

I agree with that but obviously everybody on Stockton will vote for moving forward and everyone on Milwaukee will vote for retroactive. Aside from that, the majority of the AHL will likely be voting against Crass just because it's him and there is really no way of getting around that.. People's votes will be biased based on this situation.

 

It is most definitely not, most days it seems like a high school media project being ran by a liberal teacher who never got hired after she got her masters in political science.

 

Avoid the witch hunt, change a rule and move forward.

 

Yearbook design is where all failed Political Science majors go to die.

 

Who's the deciding factor on who's vote is bias or not?